Case 1406437/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Newnham v HFC Prestige Manufacturing UK Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1406437/2019
- Decision date
- 20 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Newnham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 10 July 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no determination of the underlying merits of the listed employment claims and does not make any award of compensation or other remedy.
The hearing listed for 24 July 2020 was vacated as a result of the strike out. The judgment was dated 20 July 2020 and issued by Regional Employment Judge Pirani.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim because the claimant failed to make written representations or request a hearing after being given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim because the claimant failed to make written representations or request a hearing after being given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim because the claimant failed to make written representations or request a hearing after being given the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.